W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2000

Re: A certain difficulty

From: Stefan Decker <stefan@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 03:59:12 -0800
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000225033938.016ffdd0@db.stanford.edu>
To: xml-dev@xml.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi,

we seem to be in a kind of deadlock here:
we all agree that the RDF syntax is scary and the
RDF datamodel does not reflect the current XML
serialization.

They were concrete proposals to fix this - but
these are of course "non-standard", so nobody uses
them.
On the other side the W3C seems to wait for practice
reports from the new proposals to have input for
a new working group.

So what to do?


         Stefan




At 06:27 AM 2/25/00 -0500, David Megginson wrote:
>Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net> writes:
>
> > RDF: why?
>
>To exchange serialized objects independent of protocols or programming
>language (forget about the semantic web hooey).  RDF is suboptimal for
>this, but it gets a lot of things right (i.e. extensibility) and there
>doesn't seem to be another reasonable candidate out there yet.  On the
>other hand, the RDF-Syntax spec is scaring people away in droves, so
>it's hard to know what to do.
>
>There's a lot of money in this: e-commerce requires much richer data
>nowadays, and retailers want that data to flow from wholesalers and
>wholesalers want that data to flow from producers.  If you take a look
>at data-exchange right now (tab-delimited dumps, product-specific
>tables, etc.) it's a bit of a bad joke.  Writing specific XML formats
>for each exchange task is a small improvement, but you miss out on the
>network effect of being able to share 90% of the processing software,
>because the XML data model is too low-level.
>
>
>All the best,
>
>
>David
>
>--
>David Megginson                 david@megginson.com
>            http://www.megginson.com/
Received on Friday, 25 February 2000 07:07:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:42 GMT